Poll: This is for all the Gamers out there!

[mmins]

One word,
Braid.
Here's another,
Snatcher.

Limbo and VVVVVV were pretty awesome as well. So yes, I would like moar 2D games.

 

[krazykidd]

Some of the best games ever are in 2D. So many in fact that i won't even bother to name them. And just because something is in 2D doesn't mean it's ugly. I personally LOVE old-style snes sprites and graphics as much as i do the hyper-realistic.

This , i would gladly buy a 2D game , especially if it was a Jrpg

 

[babinro]

Yup, I grew up on 2D gaming and I never felt that it passed its prime.

I think it's sad that you really don't see as many AAA developers making 2D games like the old days. Though they do pop up from time to time on the Wii in the form of Kirby and DK (if you consider that 2D and not 2D-3D hybrid).

 

[ABadOmen]

So we're just gonna ignore Terraria then? That's the big one, but there are other 2d games too (browser games mostly though) Mario too? (although that sometimes doesn't count....

 

[SoulSalmon]

Dumb poll options are dumb...
Your choices are "Graphics matter" or "Graphics matter"...

Anyway, I think Extra Credits covered my answer in their vid on the topic.
Graphics themselves mean bugger all to me, it's a games 'visual style' or 'aesthetics' that matter.

 

[JediMB]

Yes. Two-dimensional graphics are in no way bad graphics.

Nope. Same reason why I wouldn't go to a theatre and pay a ticket to see a black and white silent movie. Or read a book carved on blocks of stone.

Fail analogy is fail.

The lack of a Z-axis doesn't take anything away for a game experience designed on a two-dimensional plane.

Meanwhile, a black and white movie would in most cases deprive the viewer of potentially important visual cues, and silent movies would make implementing dialogue a clumsier process.

The "books carved of stone" thing doesn't even deserve an explanation for why it's a nonsensical thing to say.

It's just another way of saying "I don't buy media using ridiculously and needlessly outdated means of presentation".

That said, are we talking about 2D axis or 2D graphics? 2D axis is fine, but if that's what we're talking about, the thread is kinda useless - the existence of platformers like Limbo shows gamers are definitely open to buying such titles. But I believe the OP is talking about 2D graphics and for the most part, I'm not really a fan of those. There are people who like some games like that, like VVVVVV, but it's just not doing it for me.

Oh and while "the lack of a Z-axis doesn't take anything away for a game experience designed on a two-dimensional plane", games which do have a z axis tend to be more interesting for most people.

It doesn't matter of it's 3D graphics with a 2D presentation or just plain 2D graphics as long as the game has good aesthetics and gameplay. (VVVVVV is a rather ugly game, and while I own it I just don't find enough appeal in it to have played much.) The problem, I suppose, with modern 2D games is that the developers tend to not put as much effort into the content as they would back when 2D games reached their peak, or as they can with modern 3D games.

Take a game like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. If that was released today with high-resolution hand-drawn 2D graphics, I'd easily buy that on Day One. That's a game with a lot of content. (I wouldn't pay the GameStop price for it, though, since there are retailers like Amazon UK that sell games way cheaper.)

As for popular opinion... I deem it rather irrelevant. People have filled their heads with fallacious ideas of what properties are needed for a game to be good, and won't even give something that doesn't fall within those narrow definitions an honest chance. Hell, I had a similar mindset when I was younger, and pretty much didn't give anything that wasn't Mario or Sonic a chance.

 

[Amberella]

Graphics aren't entirely important to me. It has to have a great story and gameplay for me to take a crack at it. I have to be interested in the story or I won't play it. :3